Is this game worth it?
One of my close friends pinged our Discord one day and mentioned he was playing Avowed, Obsidian Entertainment's latest critically-mixed action RPG. He liked it because it focuses on doing one thing really well: combat. And I'm sure it does! It also has interesting looking locations, great character design. But a thought festered, the same one many gamers consider here: is it worth it? Will I get my money's worth out of this game?
The price of games
The price of AAA games has begun to rise with inflation. The PS5 launched in 2020 with a $70 remake of Demon's Souls, a Blue Point Games production which takes creative liberty with in-game designs that ludo-narratively attentive fans were not very happy with. As it is in the gaming industry, once one game says something is okay and their sales aren't impacted, the rest of the industry starts doing it. Oblivion's Horse Armor foreshadowing vapid DLCs. MapleStory's gachapon tickets foreshadowing lootboxes and gambling in games.
Avowed is $70 on Steam, and launched with a $90 early access period. Grand Theft Auto VI is rumored to be priced in the $80-100 range by IGN. Websites like ScreenRant are admonishing consumers in a time of strained global economies by telling them a game released in 1997 actually costs more compared to video games today, inferring that customers "these days" have it comparatively pretty good and that a price hike would be acceptable, as if the consumer weren't the one propping up the company to charge the price in the first place.
Sorry, is my gamer rage showing? Let's back up a bit. Why are we talking about Avowed and GTA VI as endemic to the problem? We're talking about two games that have different focuses entirely: one wants to show off its primary strength as much as possible, and the other wants to essentially platformize a vibe: the feeling of being in a realistically designed and immersive world.
What do you get for $70?
To me, there are a few classic problems with typical AAA games and their releases:
- A: The expectations for the game are mismanaged by marketing
- B: The game might have promise but is delivered in a broken state
- C: The game expects to platformize and monopolize your time, but doesn't put in the effort to win your time
- D: The game tries to do too much but doesn't do anything well
Avowed Promises
Avowed suffered from mismanaged expectations. The marketing sold a story focused primarily on "Eora, the Pillars of Eternity universe" and your importance within it. With a backlog of games like Obsidian has, it's not unfair to point out that players were expecting more focus on depth and immersion of the role-playing and narrative side (funny, since Tyranny, an Obsidian title from 2016, had an interesting world but a passable combat loop).
It wasn't, because that's not what Obsidian were focused on. Saying that the game solely focuses on combat is a bit unfair, since the staples of AAA "adventure" games (think Horizon, BOTW) are there: looting, skill trees, upgrades, questing, zone exploration. Those things exist, but not everyone is sold on them. They look hollow, like so many looter shooters and adventure games before them.
Maybe I'm the one who's worn out here. It's possible I've seen it done before, and the Fables and Kingdom of Amalurs and Gothics and Neverwinter Nights (LOL) past are more present in my memory. But it just looks so hollow, overly-sanded, formulaic, corporate. The old with a fresh set of paint and little innovation.
Rockstar Content Is King
Rockstar's track record with online services support inspired case C, and I fully expect consistency for what comes next here. The entirety of effort for the lifespan of GTA Online has focused on creation of celebrity tie-in mission content rather than quality of life, and it famously took one player and independent developer creating the fix for them to reduce GTA Online's horrific load-time experience. GTA V and Online has lived and died primarily through its modding and role-play communities, its memeability (both as a vertical split-video distraction and as truly meme).
Monster Hunter: Wildly Divergent Opinions
Monster Hunter: Wilds gets a special shoutout here for being in a particularly weird place of divisiveness. As someone who experienced World, close to launch and last year logged more time in Iceborne, Wilds looks prettier and more polished. They sanded off some of the experiential edges with mounts, combat is faster but still deliberate and satisfying, and multiplayer is quicker to access. Yet, the game is admonished as more empty than previous titles at launch, performance is a highly mixed bag depending on your rig, and there continues to be a heavy press on the steady drip of rewards from live service elements / platformization. My feeling is that it's a great first Monster Hunter game, but existing Monster Hunter fans have very mixed feelings depending on what they liked about previous titles.
There are certainly examples to the contrary, but when the worldwide premiere of <New Game X> is announced at The Game Awards, it's becoming easier and easier to figure that these games will ship with at least one of these problems, and more and more surprising when something like
Black Myth: Wukong unfurls its wings and emerges as a complete, decently optimized, focused experience that does it well. It's funny, but predictable, when a Concord comes along and then is immediately erased from existence.
Where do we go from here?
Let's circle back to the original question. Are these games worth it? The objective truth is hard to reach, since the customer is always right (in matters of taste). I can't tell you what you like, only what I like.
Do I like the idea that Avowed deprioritizes their narrative and focuses on hit bad guy and use item? That it falls into the recent Obsidian standard and frontloads its content in order to impress on what it has to offer ahead of time, leaving the later hours of the game feeling less full and unique? No, but for a lot of people, it works. They want occasional players to see what they have to offer too, and it's to many players' tastes.
Do I like the idea that GTA VI will have a similar monetization scheme to V, pushing players to engage with their microtransactions while also having bought a game that might cost up to $100? No, not really. But, the clear expectation is that Rockstar will be delivering a complete, premium, and immersive product that resonates with a lot of gamers. People will buy it. It's Grant Theft Auto!
These games are probably not worth it, for me. But they might be for you. But wait, what if we didn't have to pay for big games?
Freemium Games
Ahh, freemium games. I expect these slowly fade from my repertoire, as their time investment for skill maintenance is difficult to handle, and their focus is very strictly on being a) esports and b) PVP (Rocket League and League of Legends are my cigarettes here, for context). Where do these come into our scheme? What is the cost of a freemium game?
Their appeal is obvious. You can sign up, start playing at no cost, and log thousands of hours into a game that demands teamwork, timing and skill - sometimes all at once. There are audiences that treat these games as their mono-game, which I don't endorse but do understand. The design of these games focuses on "short" (LoL matches used to have an average of 45min, but have gotten drastically shorter on average) play sessions and positive feedback loops. Fast aerials to hit a ball and rotating quickly for boost is rewarding and fun! Full-clearing jungle and shifting quickly into a top dive is rewarding and fun! Dropping with your buddy in Fortnite or Apex...you get the idea.
I don't mind PVP, despite the toxic cultures of the aforementioned games. I don't seek it out to win, but more to apply context to the skills I both currently have and want to develop. To get the hours of practice in, and feel like my skill is going up.
See, the real cost of these games is your time, and immersion in the environment. The idea is that you're playing these games so much that when new content comes around, however little it might be, makes things feel new and fresh (looking at every Rocket Pass since the Volkswagen Golf, and that's only because it's a funny car for a different reason for me).
You might see cosmetics you don't own and think "Hey, that's pretty good! One for me, please." Or, as designed, you passively gain levels in the Battle Pass™, and as you play more, you're increasingly convinced by the growing pile of things that could all be yours, for the low low price of $14.99.
The cost of these games is in time and attrition. If you're immune to these things and can pick up the game once in a while, or strictly time-block your play sessions, these can be enjoyable games to engage with. It's a slippery slope, though, and time can easily get away from you if you ever think: "Just one more. Can't end it on a loss."
The prickly thing is, though, that a game like this can feel worth investing that time in. I have 1700 hours in Rocket League, and at least that in League of Legends. The average playtime for RL is 300 hours on Steam, and 170 hours on Playstation. Wasted on LoL's site description:
An average player has spent 832 hours on League of Legends and 8.468.557 players took the test.
These are games that people can clearly get a lot out of, with or without spending money. Marvel Rivals is popping off right now, and has been basically since launch.
Seriously, where the fuck are you going with this
I dunno man. I did just rant about the inconsistency of big budget game quality for too long, but I don't have anything against anyone who plays and enjoys these games. In fact, I'm curious about their opinions, and sought out resources to write this and better understand the reception. Discoverability is a hard problem for consumers and suppliers, and it's not surprising that the most advertised games are the most installed games. I won't buy Avowed, but maybe I'll resubscribe to GamePass and give it a shot someday. 2025 has so many more releases yet to come.
I like indies but I'm also in a love-hate relationship with online free-to-plays. I like games that let me go fast. I'd like to discover more of the AA space; I loved my time with Satisfactory and Deep Rock Galactic. I'm not immune to AAAs from time to time either. I enjoyed Armored Core VI and Red Dead 2 and Nier: Automata, all within the last year. I picked up AstroBot for my partner and I to play together.
But you? Play what you like. I think it's important to find your own fun and don't let others yuck your yum. Be realistic about the experience a game will give you. In an ideal world, you wait to hear about what a game looks and feels like from a source that won't bullshit you. Wait for gameplay from real people, and see if the vibe is right. Be judicious and optimize for fun. Don't buy broken trash.